The Queen v Walter Watts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1850 |
| Date | 01 January 1850 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 398
Crown Cases
S. C. T. & M. 342; 4 New Sess. Cas 381; 19 L. J. M. C. 192; 14 J P. 399; 14 R. v. Watts, 1854, 2 W. R. 233; R v. Smith, 1855, 19 J. P 774, R v Morrison, 1859, Bell C. C. 158; R. v. Lowrie, 1867, 10 Cox C. C. 388, R v Cooke, 1871, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 295.
398 THE QUEEN V. WALTER WATTS 2 DEN. 13. [14] 1850. the queen v walter watts (A. was convicted ou the 14th count of an indictment which charged him with " stealing a piece of paper, the property of Goldsnud and others, his masters." Goldsnud and others were directors of the Globe Insurance Company, managed the affairs of the company, appointed, paid, controlled, and dismissed the clerks and other servants, and had the charge and custody of all the books and papers of the company The company had a drawing account with Glyn & Co., and used to send their pass-books on Tuesday in every week to be written up, and their messenger went on the following morning to bring it back, when it was returned together with the cheques, &c of the preceding week. A was a salaried clerk in the office of the company, and also a shareholder , it was his dnty to receive the pass-book and vouchers from the messenger, and to preserve the vouchers for the use of the company On 27th February, Glyn & Co delivered the Globe pass-book, containing among other things a certain cashed cheque for 1400 to the messenger of the company, who delivered the book and cheque to A. in the usual way, and he thereupon fraudulently destroyed it Held, (1), that the cheque was the property of the directors, of that kind : if he had, I should have had great difficulty in saying it was not a good and sufficient objection. " Bliss. Does not your Lordship think, that though not urged at the time, it may be brought forward now ? " Alderson B.-No. If that objection had been taken at the time, the parties might have removed it by adopting a different course of life, and living with propriety and decency. " Knowles. There were two mouths in which they might have done so. " Alderson B. This was not the objection on which the defendant said he declined to marry the [13] parties Their living in a state of concubinage, I would not willingly say would not be a good objection, and I would not willingly deprive you of it if it had been made. Then it would have been a question on which the young people would have had an opportunity of saying ' We will shew our desire to Lead a holy life , we will refrain from living in a state of concubinage, and we will shew you, by our conduct, that we are anxious to refrain from sin ' But if you. do not state the objection, the party cannot remove it, and I shall hold you theiefore to the objection you have taken " Bliss. Perhaps, your Lordship will reserve that point ? " Note by Editor.-The indictment charged an absolute and unlawful refusal. The plea " not guilty " throws on the Crown the burden of proving three things ; 1st, a refusal in fact ; 2nd, an absolute refusal , 3rd, an unlawful refusal. The evidence only proved a conditional refusal, upon which the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal, whether such refusal were lawful or unlawful But supposing the indictment had been so framed as to require evidence of a conditional refusal, it is difficult to see how the defendant, on proof of such conditional refusal if unlawful, could in rerum imtura rebut such evidence by shewing that grounds existed on which a lawful refusal might have been maintained For it would be in effect to say, " True, I did refuse on unlawful, and therefore untenable grounds ; but had I known better or been more prudent, I might have refused on lawful and tenable grounds " This would be to repel a charge of doing an act in an unlawful manner by proving that it might have been done in a different and lawful manner It seems that on the general principles of the doctrine of notice in civil cases the parljy applying would be entitled to treat an express particular ground of refusal as tfce only ground on which any refusal could be maintained R v Inhabitants of Staple Fitzpawie, 2 Q. B. 498, and cases there cited in note (a), p. 499 The same principle seems to apply to criminal cases Qucere, how would the case have stood on this indictment, if the defendant had simply refused to marry the party without assigning any reasons 2 It seems that he would have been entitled to prove any number of lawful grounds of refusal. For " not guilty " means, " I did not refuse, or if I did, I refused lawfully." 2 DEN. 15. THE QUEEN V. WALTER WATTS 399 and that A., though a shareholder in the company, had no joint property in it. (2) That he was guilty of larceny as a servant, inasmuch as the cheque when deKvered into the custody of A in the usual course of business, was constructively in the possession of the directors, who, under the circumstances, wore his masters.) [S. C. T. & M. 342 ; 4 New Sess. Gas. 381 ; 19 L. J. M. C. 192 ; 14 J P. 399 ; 14 Jur. 870; 4 Cox C. C. 336 Referred to, R. v. Powell, 1852, 5 Cox C. C. 396 , R. v. Watts, 1854, 2 W. E. 233 ; R v. Smith, 1855, 19 J. P 774 , R v Mornsott, 1859, Bell C. C. 158 ; R. v. Lowne, 1867, 10 Cox C. C. 388 , R v Cooke, 1871, L. E. 1 C. C. E. 295.] The prisoner was tried before Mr. Justice Cresswell, at the Central Criminal Court, on the 10th of May, 1850, on an indictment, of which the following is an abstract. " Walter Watts. That he on the 26th February, at St Mary's Woolnoth, in London, was clerk to George Carr Glyn, and whilst he was such clerk, feloniously did steal one order for the payment of money, to wit, for the payment and of the value of 1400 belonging to the said George Carr Glyn, his master " 2nd count, alleges that said prisoner was clerk to the said George Carr Glyn as and then and there being treasurer of the Globe Insurance Company, and that he did steal one order, &e., belonging to the said George Carr Glyn as such treasurer. " 3rd count, alleges that said prisoner was servant to Edward Goldsmid and others, and that he did steal one order, and belonging to them his masters. [15] " 4th count, like third, only instead of alleging the order to belong to Goldsmid and others, alleges it to have been in their possession and power. 1 5th and 6th counts, William Tite and others, instead of Goldsmid and others. ' 7th aoid 8th counts, embezzling the order, the property of Glyn ' 9th count, embezzling the order, the property of Goldsmid and others. ' 10th count, embezzling 1400 of Goldsmid and others, his masters. ' llth count, embezzling the order, the property of Tite and others. ' 12th and 13th counts, stealing a piece of paper belonging to Glyn, his master. ' 14th count, stealing a piece of paper, the property of Goldsmid and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v George Morrison
...for robbing another of a memorandum of a debt due to him. A cancelled cheque may be the subject of larceny ; Regma v. Walter Watt* (2 Den. C. C. 14). This ticket is not a chose in action, nor is it in any way connected with real property. Crompton J.-Has it not been held that a man ttiay be......
-
R v William Ansell Godfrey
...the ground that, being unstamped, it was not evidence of a chose in action. See also Regina v. Perry, 1 Den. C C. 69 ; Regina v. Watts, 2 Den. C. C. 14. 107d BEGINA V. THOMAS WRIGHT DEARS. & BELL 431. Metcalfe. This Court has no power to strike out the words, and, if it had, the property in......
-
R v Abraham Reed
...servant. Whilst they are in transitu they are in th& possession of the servant. In support of this view I would refer to Watt's case, 2 Den. C. C. p. 14. The prisoner was convicted upon the 14th count of the indictment, which charged him with stealing a piece of paper, the property of Golds......